ACT on Campus on decriminalising marijuana

Hat tip to David Farrar for pointing me to this one. Helen Simpson (pictured) – relatively new ACT on Campus President shares the view of Libertarianz on this point on the ACT on Campus blog. Prohibition doesn’t work. Trevor Loudon, ACT Vice President has also blogged her post, without stating an opinion. . What a step forward it would be for ACT at least, if not National to talk more about this. Don’t be afraid – parts of Labour say it too, as my last post pointed out.
.
As I have stated before a couple of times, and Not PC as well – this all comes down to who owns your life, and who owns your body.
.
So when the President of ACT on Campus says it, and David Farrar says it – will it ever percolate upwards?

The tiny libertarian part of Labour

According to Kete Were:

"At the Auckland/Northland regional conference of the labour party tonight these motions were passed:

- That a system of voluntary euthanasia for the termanilly (sic) ill be legalised

- That labour in government decriminalise the personal use of marijuana so that it is deal with as a health and social issue rather than a law and order one."

Stone the crows - if only! (and if only the tax, welfare and economic policy was similarly enlightened).

Bring that part of Labour into ACT and maybe.... ?

Brash talks about nanny state... but

really, will he walk the walk, or will he even consistently talk the talk? Will his team? Sadly it is difficult to tell.

.

Speaking in Picton, Don Brash said Labour has been wasteful and poor managers of public services according to Stuff.

.

The whole Picton speech is here. Some of the notable points are:

.

"Our concern is for the thousands of Kiwi shareholders in our largest company who’ve lost out this week as a result of Labour’s inept handling of this issue. The Government’s bumbling has needlessly worsened the situation for investors, and shows the Government’s complete lack of understanding about how the economy and the capital markets work. "

.

So does that mean unbundling is bad or not? Hmmmm. He goes on about the leak, which Not PC points out isn't the point.

.

"It was Helen Clark, staring at the prospect of electoral defeat, who said it was okay to steal half a million dollars off the taxpayers of New Zealand, and spend it on her election campaign, knowing full well that in doing so she’d breach the legal spending cap – something our Electoral Act calls a corrupt practice. "

.

Indeed - National shouldn't let that one go at all.

.

"Helen Clark and Michael Cullen will be leaving behind a terrible legacy of poor incentives and dependency. They’ll leave a mess of poorly-thought-out and politically opportunistic tax and income support policy, which will unfortunately cost all New Zealanders dearly in the years ahead. "

.

Exactly, and if National can confront the welfare state it will have gone a long way towards attacking one of the biggest social failures in the past generation.

.

"Now of course I can’t tell you at this stage precisely what tax reductions National will propose for the next election – there’s too much water to go under the bridge to make that feasible. But you can be absolutely sure that lower taxes, and much improved work incentives for all Kiwis, will be central to our policy at the next election, and indeed in subsequent elections. Under National, you will pay lower taxes!"

.

No doubt better than nothing, but it would be helpful if he could promise cuts of a scale at least like that previously promised. While more and more taxpayers slip into the hardly rich $60,000 p.a. 39% tax bracket, it would be nice if that rate was simply dropped.

.

"the National Party is so focused on ensuring one law for all New Zealanders. That’s why we want to abolish separate electoral seats based on race. "

.

Good!

.

"The reality is that only National understands it’s the actions of individuals that cause the economy to grow. "

.

Not only National, but it is good he notices this.

.

Well - there is hope, Don Brash does believe in a lot of the right things, and when left to it, he does lean in the right direction. He still remains the National Party's best hope - if only he listened to himself more.

Kiwi FM - you didn't listen to it, so now you pay for it

Not long ago, Canwest decided to try a new radio station format - with 100% New Zealand music and called the network Kiwi FM (unrelated to the former Waikato contemporary hit radio station of around a decade ago). It broadcast in the three largest centres and was a commercial flop.

.

You see, most people don't want to listen to a radio station playing just NZ music - in fact, given that commercially viable radio stations in our highly competitive market need only about 5% of listenership to start being worthwhile, Kiwi FM couldn't even manage that.

.

So, in short, despite the pleadings of the taxpayer subsidised NZ music industry (they are in it for the culture - except they want to be paid for it) and the Labour government - virtually all of the public does not WANT to listen to NZ music because it is NZ music.

.

What a surprise - you choose music you like because of the melody, beat, lyrics, talent of the performer etc -not because it is from New Zealand. If being local mattered, you'd like nothing more than to listen to your next door neighbour on the guitar -or the band at the local pub. Nationalism over music is either marketing bullshit generated by the local music industry or some mind-numbingly stupid xenophobia in reverse, that makes something "special" because it is homegrown.

.

Steve Maharey appears to be both - he supports the local music industry, because somehow people who can't generate public support for their music are deserving of money taken from those who don't support them, through taxes. He also thinks there is some sort of nationalistic zeitgeist in local art and culture that needs supporting. It is important you pay for a radio station you don't listen to, because it help binds you to the rest of the New Zealand public - in only the way a politician and university academic knows how - inexplicably!

.

So, you see, Canwest - the latest state moocher - was going to close down Kiwi FM and replace it with The Breeze (yawn) in Auckland and no doubt other formats in Wellington and Christchurch. The frequencies that Canwest own can be put to better use broadcasting radio stations that people want to hear, not Kiwi FM. This upset Maharey and the noisy local music lobby, firmly with their snouts in the taxpayers' trough since Labour was elected - so three FM radio frequencies are being made available to Canwest to continue broadcasting Kiwi FM, for free.

.

The government has basically announced a package of pork to keep this unsuccessful station on air. Not only is it getting frequencies that should be sold off to the highest bidder, but it is getting taxpayer money for particular radio programmes - which, of course, wouldn't be needed if enough people wanted to listen. The intention is that the station should become "not for profit".

.

So you're going to be subsidising a privately owned commercial station to become a non-commercial station - with an audience share of not 5%, not 1%, but 0.5% of all radio listeners 10+ nationwide (0.9% in Wellington and 0.7% in Auckland). Less than most Maori stations, less than Concert FM.

.

Tune into it sometime to decide if you're happy about it, and then write to Maharey and complain, and think about whether getting government help to prop up your uneconomic radio stations is a good thing for Canwest to do. New Zealand music isn't special - some of it is good, some of it is awful - none of it has to do about what country it comes from.

.

UPDATE: I hate socialism blogs about why Kiwi FM isn't a success and shouldn't be propped up.

Lindsay Mitchell rightfully points out that what is worse is using Kiwi FM's high NZ airplay to bully other stations into playing more- although there is NO legal instrument to enforce a quota - it is all voluntary and as I pointed out here, the CER Agreement and WTO commitments of the government mean it MUST remain voluntary.

Telecom gets a hammering - no you don't own it, unless you have shares

This is my Friday rant.

.

$4.72 for Telecom, it was $5.70 a few weeks ago.

.

All the slobbering foaming at the mouth "it is ours anyway" mob will be downing their bottles of cask wine in excitement, stroking their moustaches and beer bellies, or their scrunched up envy ridden faces going on about how good it is that those foreign bastards are getting it at last. Ringing up talkback I bet to have a good old moan about the good old days and that bastard Douglas who sold Telecom (actually Clark and Cullen had the same amount of say at the time - Douglas had long been ousted as Finance Minister).

.

Simple message - you don't fucking own Telecom. The "you" you talk about, sold it - sold it because "you" owed a mountain of debt and needed the money to pay some back - "you" spent it on welfare and subsidies and the like. "You" didn't spent a cent on upgrading Telecom after that. If "you" didn't like it, then maybe "you" should have asked government to spend less in the 70s and 80s - but I doubt if "you" did.

.

Your bullshit argument that "we paid for it so it's ours" is complete nonsense - it is so mind numbingly stupid that it defies comprehension that people who know how to put clothes on can make the argument. This is about as relevant as going to the owner of a car or house you ONCE owned and claiming it is yours again -having sold it previously. You might have built the house, but you sold it and lost all rights to it - fair and square. "Oh but I opposed the sale" - well tough shit. In a liberal democracy your argument lost. The sale proceeded and no party has ever been elected to buy it back.

.

So frankly when it comes to Telecom, unless you own shares you can simply fuck off, buy some and then have your say at the AGM, vote on the directors etc.

.

Pay attention to something you own, and any contracts you have with Telecom - all your imaginary public good socialistic bullshit is just that - because when it comes down to it, I can't hold you or any of you lot accountable when your socialist bullshit does not deliver - such as with health care.

.

It is times like this that I wish that Theresa Gattung just announced that Telecom was pulling out, and I mean pulling out - it was giving notice of the termination of all service contracts, and would be dismantling its network and selling the wire and fibre optics for scrap. Now I know this makes no business sense - but Telecom is entitled to do this - just like you're entitled to destroy your own property (unless it is a special tree or a historic place). Imagine if it did that - then where would you be? No producer has an obligation to supply you with any good or service as of right - remember that. You get goods and services by contract. Just as you can decide to buy no more, so can the producer decide to sell no more.

.

Apologies for those who have shares - you do own it, and I'm sure you're feeling less than happy about how much the government has destroyed some of your wealth with cheerleaders across (most) of the political spectrum.

.

Sometimes I simply think it is time that consumers realised how lucky they are that producers even exist.